Drew, it's your site and you're free to do what you like with it. This is one of my favorite places on the 'nets. But as a feminist, I am disappointed when one group I care strongly about marginalizes the other.

We are all attracted to human forms of some kind and there's nothing wrong with that. For me, the problem with a post like this is that, rather than celebrate human sexuality, it reinforces the cultural notion that women are valueless (regardless of career choice or ideological stance) unless they conform to a rigid notion of physical attractiveness.

If you enjoy looking at these women, that's fine. But posting this shows a disrespect to your female readership by exhibiting willful blindness to the hardships they face in being taken seriously in academic pursuits. You could have gotten around that by being more inclusive.

missmarsha:Drew, it's your site and you're free to do what you like with it. This is one of my favorite places on the 'nets. But as a feminist, I am disappointed when one group I care strongly about marginalizes the other.

We are all attracted to human forms of some kind and there's nothing wrong with that. For me, the problem with a post like this is that, rather than celebrate human sexuality, it reinforces the cultural notion that women are valueless (regardless of career choice or ideological stance) unless they conform to a rigid notion of physical attractiveness.

If you enjoy looking at these women, that's fine. But posting this shows a disrespect to your female readership by exhibiting willful blindness to the hardships they face in being taken seriously in academic pursuits. You could have gotten around that by being more inclusive.

Obligatory you sound fat, etc...

But seriously - well first, Drew didn't make the list so I'd suggest that this would be better aimed at the author of the site. And secondly, I'd actually suggest there is more of an argument of reverse discrimination between physical attractiveness and scientific fields. I had to read the cheerleader pictured twice when I saw "rocket scientist" listed, not because I didn't think a lady could be rocket scientist, but I was surprised that someone who looked as hot as she does would be a rocket scientist.

And on top of that, there exists a stereotype wherein people think that hot girls have it easier than guys and less attactive girls because of their looks, and thereby are less qualified. "I can't get anyone to take me seriously because they think I've got where I am because of my boobs and not my brains".

OldScotch:missmarsha: Drew, it's your site and you're free to do what you like with it. This is one of my favorite places on the 'nets. But as a feminist, I am disappointed when one group I care strongly about marginalizes the other.

We are all attracted to human forms of some kind and there's nothing wrong with that. For me, the problem with a post like this is that, rather than celebrate human sexuality, it reinforces the cultural notion that women are valueless (regardless of career choice or ideological stance) unless they conform to a rigid notion of physical attractiveness.

If you enjoy looking at these women, that's fine. But posting this shows a disrespect to your female readership by exhibiting willful blindness to the hardships they face in being taken seriously in academic pursuits. You could have gotten around that by being more inclusive.

Obligatory you sound fat, etc...

But seriously - well first, Drew didn't make the list so I'd suggest that this would be better aimed at the author of the site. And secondly, I'd actually suggest there is more of an argument of reverse discrimination between physical attractiveness and scientific fields. I had to read the cheerleader pictured twice when I saw "rocket scientist" listed, not because I didn't think a lady could be rocket scientist, but I was surprised that someone who looked as hot as she does would be a rocket scientist.

And on top of that, there exists a stereotype wherein people think that hot girls have it easier than guys and less attactive girls because of their looks, and thereby are less qualified. "I can't get anyone to take me seriously because they think I've got where I am because of my boobs and not my brains".

OldScotch:missmarsha: Drew, it's your site and you're free to do what you like with it. This is one of my favorite places on the 'nets. But as a feminist, I am disappointed when one group I care strongly about marginalizes the other.

We are all attracted to human forms of some kind and there's nothing wrong with that. For me, the problem with a post like this is that, rather than celebrate human sexuality, it reinforces the cultural notion that women are valueless (regardless of career choice or ideological stance) unless they conform to a rigid notion of physical attractiveness.

If you enjoy looking at these women, that's fine. But posting this shows a disrespect to your female readership by exhibiting willful blindness to the hardships they face in being taken seriously in academic pursuits. You could have gotten around that by being more inclusive.

Obligatory you sound fat, etc...

But seriously - well first, Drew didn't make the list so I'd suggest that this would be better aimed at the author of the site. And secondly, I'd actually suggest there is more of an argument of reverse discrimination between physical attractiveness and scientific fields. I had to read the cheerleader pictured twice when I saw "rocket scientist" listed, not because I didn't think a lady could be rocket scientist, but I was surprised that someone who looked as hot as she does would be a rocket scientist.

And on top of that, there exists a stereotype wherein people think that hot girls have it easier than guys and less attactive girls because of their looks, and thereby are less qualified. "I can't get anyone to take me seriously because they think I've got where I am because of my boobs and not my brains".

funny. your feigned misunderstanding of my point,actually places emphasis on my point. its easier to dismiss the comment than take a google moment or 2 to seek out some ethnic diversity for this particular post. why should you..? you arent racist... you have plenty of Black friends and you love Jay-Z and Darius Rucker... ;-0 trust me, I get it. its not Drew's to make everyone happy, comfortable or welcome. its Drew's, he can run it as he wishes. i just thought he may appreciate the feedback.

missmarsha:Drew, it's your site and you're free to do what you like with it. This is one of my favorite places on the 'nets. But as a feminist, I am disappointed when one group I care strongly about marginalizes the other.

We are all attracted to human forms of some kind and there's nothing wrong with that. For me, the problem with a post like this is that, rather than celebrate human sexuality, it reinforces the cultural notion that women are valueless (regardless of career choice or ideological stance) unless they conform to a rigid notion of physical attractiveness.

If you enjoy looking at these women, that's fine. But posting this shows a disrespect to your female readership by exhibiting willful blindness to the hardships they face in being taken seriously in academic pursuits. You could have gotten around that by being more inclusive.

6/10 because you got a bite, but lose points because you copied it straight from the comments in the link. Lazy troll is lazy!

Should I be asking you or Palverer, the person who's comment you copied & pasted, what your point is?

+1 rocket scientist. was it the 5 people above me talking about the crazies in the comments or the guy who said he sensed a troll attempt was imminent that tipped you off. Here's a clue - before you go on a crazy rant read the whole thread

Should I be asking you or Palverer, the person who's comment you copied & pasted, what your point is?

+1 rocket scientist. was it the 5 people above me talking about the crazies in the comments or the guy who said he sensed a troll attempt was imminent that tipped you off. Here's a clue - before you go on a crazy rant read the whole thread

Should I be asking you or Palverer, the person who's comment you copied & pasted, what your point is?

+1 rocket scientist. was it the 5 people above me talking about the crazies in the comments or the guy who said he sensed a troll attempt was imminent that tipped you off. Here's a clue - before you go on a crazy rant read the whole thread

That's a crazy rant? You're easy to please.

that's what she said/ba-dum bum//i was hoping to get the early morning liters...

missmarsha:Drew, it's your site and you're free to do what you like with it. This is one of my favorite places on the 'nets. But as a feminist, I am disappointed when one group I care strongly about marginalizes the other.

We are all attracted to human forms of some kind and there's nothing wrong with that. For me, the problem with a post like this is that, rather than celebrate human sexuality, it reinforces the cultural notion that women are valueless (regardless of career choice or ideological stance) unless they conform to a rigid notion of physical attractiveness.

If you enjoy looking at these women, that's fine. But posting this shows a disrespect to your female readership by exhibiting willful blindness to the hardships they face in being taken seriously in academic pursuits. You could have gotten around that by being more inclusive.

missmarsha:Drew, it's your site and you're free to do what you like with it. This is one of my favorite places on the 'nets. But as a feminist, I am disappointed when one group I care strongly about marginalizes the other.

We are all attracted to human forms of some kind and there's nothing wrong with that. For me, the problem with a post like this is that, rather than celebrate human sexuality, it reinforces the cultural notion that women are valueless (regardless of career choice or ideological stance) unless they conform to a rigid notion of physical attractiveness.

If you enjoy looking at these women, that's fine. But posting this shows a disrespect to your female readership by exhibiting willful blindness to the hardships they face in being taken seriously in academic pursuits. You could have gotten around that by being more inclusive.

missmarsha:If you enjoy looking at these women, that's fine. But posting this shows a disrespect to your female readership by exhibiting willful blindness to the hardships they face in being taken seriously in academic pursuits. You could have gotten around that by being more inclusive.

missmarsha:We are all attracted to human forms of some kind and there's nothing wrong with that. For me, the problem with a post like this is that, rather than celebrate human sexuality, it reinforces the cultural notion that women are valueless (regardless of career choice or ideological stance) unless they conform to a rigid notion of physical attractiveness.

THIS. Besides, this list was lazy as hell. Most of these women are slightly above-average in looks and low-level scientists (if they can even be called that). It's insulting that this is the best list he could come up with.

I could compile a list of about the same quality just going through female grad students in my own department at a relatively small university. The list also included at least a few undergrads, thta really opens up the list.

entropic_existence:I could compile a list of about the same quality just going through female grad students in my own department at a relatively small university. The list also included at least a few undergrads, thta really opens up the list.